Macungie council reiterates support for around-the-clock police coverage

It wants part-time officers to fill empty shifts to avoid overtime.

Macungie Borough Council this week voiced its support for around-the-clock… (PATRICK LESTER/THE MORNING…)

June 05, 2012|By Jennifer L. Rodgers and Patrick Lester, Special to The Morning Call

The issue of around-the-clock police coverage took center stage again at Macungie's council meeting this week, but the man at the center of this issue, Mayor Rick Hoffman, was a no-show.

Some residents said they support 24-hour coverage and want it provided by borough officers. They asked why Hoffman wanted to cut weekly shifts from 30 to 25 when the budget provides for constant coverage if part-time officers are used.

"I don't know why the mayor continues to offer directives to the police chief that make it impossible for him to provide 24/7 coverage," Dorothy Kociuba, a former councilwoman, said at Monday night's meeting.

Council on Monday night, by a 5-0 vote, reiterated its support for 24-hour coverage by borough officers, using part-timers to fill empty shifts rather than full-timers on overtime whenever possible. Borough Council, in its motion, recommended an average of 240 hours per week of coverage, but stressed "we need to stay within our budget, whenever possible."

The approved motion is a recommendation and the mayor does not have follow it.

Reached on Tuesday, Hoffman said his directive allowing 25 shifts per week does provide 24-hour coverage. Hoffman has said the police department can use only part-timers in the event of prescheduled absences by full-timers and must get approval for overtime hours taken by full-timers. The department has five full-time officers.

Hoffman said he issued the directive after he fielded complaints about the number of officers working day shifts. He said his plan is "doable," would provide around-the-clock coverage and would save the borough money. In the event of an open shift without a borough officer on duty, state police at Fogelsville would be called in to the borough if needed.

Borough solicitor Patrick Armstrong said council could order the mayor to implement 24/7 coverage but a new state law that goes into effect July 16 will strip council of that power.

"I don't want to tell the mayor what to do," Councilman Gregory Hutchison said. "The previous council wasn't smart and did this and we lost $90,000."

Members of the public weren't happy with Hutchinson's comments, with some suggesting that council was "afraid of the mayor".

"We are making a recommendation to the mayor and he doesn't have to follow it," Hutchinson said.

Open shifts seem to be the biggest concern among some residents. Kociuba questioned previous comments by the mayor that police coverage could be provided by neighboring departments if a shift were left open. She said Police Chief Edward Harry reported that a neighboring police officer could not respond to the borough unless it was made by a Macungie officer who was on duty.

Macungie business owner Tim Romig showed email correspondence between Harry and the mayor that reference open shifts, overtime and DUI checkpoints.

In the emails, Harry asks for direction on 24/7 coverage and asked for confirmation that the mayor would take responsibility for any open shifts that are not filled.

The mayor wrote on May 11: "Chief, as of today any open shifts that cannot be filled by moving an officer from a tach shift or putting in a part timer is to remain an open shift, you are not to fill it with overtime or comp time, which is a form of overtime, without my approval. This directive will absolve you of all responsibility for the open shift. I expect this to be followed immediately."

"Why is the mayor attempting to create open shifts and not provide 24/7 coverage?" Romig asked. "It's in the budget."

In a subsequent email the mayor asks Harry why officers are still conducting DUI checkpoints when the number of shifts has been limited.

"Even though we do get reimbursed for the time, I don't feel we have the manpower or the shifts to do this," Hoffman wrote on May 14.

Harry responded 20 minutes later in an email:

"As far as DUI checkpoints, if you want to deny officers being able to participate in DUI checkpoints or us sponsoring DUI checkpoints, then I would ask that you write a formal directive ordering that. Before you do that, you may want to reconsider that order. It is a near certainty that the union will file a grievance if that order is issued. You may also want to consider how that would make you look if you order that officers are no longer allowed to participate in DUI enforcement events when it does not impact our budget or schedule."